Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Covid 19 test

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Covid 19 test

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-told-11963509

    A new easy test for Covid is expected to be available within days in the UK. As well as testing whether the patient has Covid it will also be able to test whether the patient has had it in the past thus telling if they were now immune.

    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

  • #2
    The problem with most of the tests is that they are based on the antibodies. They are in essence just testing if the blood contains antibodies targeting the virus surface proteins. Which means that it will not tell if a person has COVID-19 in case the person being tested has not yet started to produce antibodies for it (which is AFAIK about a week into the infection). Which means that a person can have COVID-19, be symptomatic and spread the disease, and yet give negative results. So while it is good news it doesn't change much in the 'front lines'. As far as I'm aware the only actually functional methods to positively ID the virus rely on PCR and that has never been all that fast and always has limited capacity.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
      The problem with most of the tests is that they are based on the antibodies. They are in essence just testing if the blood contains antibodies targeting the virus surface proteins. Which means that it will not tell if a person has COVID-19 in case the person being tested has not yet started to produce antibodies for it (which is AFAIK about a week into the infection). Which means that a person can have COVID-19, be symptomatic and spread the disease, and yet give negative results. So while it is good news it doesn't change much in the 'front lines'. As far as I'm aware the only actually functional methods to positively ID the virus rely on PCR and that has never been all that fast and always has limited capacity.
      By testing for anti bodies it determines who has had the disease and thus give an idea of the progress of the disease within the wider population, in particular determine the number of people who have had mild versions of the disease and recovered. These people will now be immune and be able to go back to work.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
        By testing for anti bodies it determines who has had the disease and thus give an idea of the progress of the disease within the wider population, in particular determine the number of people who have had mild versions of the disease and recovered. These people will now be immune and be able to go back to work.
        Yes, it is a great tool for post outbreak mapping of the disease. And such tools are already widely used. However it unfortunately will do little with the current crisis. It will help if the curve can indeed be kept low enough. Also there is yet need to study and learn how long a 'cured' person remains capable of infecting others. There are some indications that it may take weeks even after symptoms have cleared away.
        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Surrey View Post

          By testing for anti bodies it determines who has had the disease and thus give an idea of the progress of the disease within the wider population, in particular determine the number of people who have had mild versions of the disease and recovered. These people will now be immune and be able to go back to work.
          But...this is a "brand new virus" to which there can therefore be no "antibodies" from old cases. So sayeth the mornonic media and the so-called "experts".

          My grandfather defined an expert as "an idiot in an expensive suit."
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            But...this is a "brand new virus" to which there can therefore be no "antibodies" from old cases. So sayeth the mornonic media and the so-called "experts".
            They are most likely using essentially basic immunoassays, similar used in first year biochemistry studies. They do not need to look for certain antibodies (which would not be possible). Instead they are looking for any antibodies that are capable of binding to the surface proteins of the virus. They have proteins similar to the surface proteins of the virus bound to the test strip. If the blood sample contains antibodies specific to virus' surface proteins they will bind to the proteins bound on the strip. Then a second reagent (typically, but not necessarily) is run through it. This second one binds to the remaining free (i.e. unbound) surface proteins and typically gives some reaction (fluorescence, color, UV, radiation, whatever) or can otherwise be detected. if the sample being tested gives lesser reaction than the control sample that test sample contained some antibodies.

            Really simple stuff.
            It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
              They are most likely using essentially basic immunoassays, similar used in first year biochemistry studies. They do not need to look for certain antibodies (which would not be possible). Instead they are looking for any antibodies that are capable of binding to the surface proteins of the virus. They have proteins similar to the surface proteins of the virus bound to the test strip. If the blood sample contains antibodies specific to virus' surface proteins they will bind to the proteins bound on the strip. Then a second reagent (typically, but not necessarily) is run through it. This second one binds to the remaining free (i.e. unbound) surface proteins and typically gives some reaction (fluorescence, color, UV, radiation, whatever) or can otherwise be detected. if the sample being tested gives lesser reaction than the control sample that test sample contained some antibodies.

              Really simple stuff.
              Then it should have been readily available already from past exposures. Either it existed previously or it didn't.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Then it should have been readily available already from past exposures. Either it existed previously or it didn't.
                You seem to forget that the disease has been known since December and that the medical firms started their work on it in January.
                It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X